Center column 3rd paragraph down:
Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>
Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham, framer of the 14 amendment in the United States House on March 9, 1866”
Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”
(I have more if you would like.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b).
"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one
of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was
physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than
ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
Since Ms. Dunham was only 18 at the time that means she Does NOT transfer citizenship to Mr. Obama.
http://www.aca.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=44
Doesn’t Obama qualify under #1?
Here’s the current law from the US Code on “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth.”
From Title 8 of the current US Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
Also, in one of the 72 adjudicated Obama eligibility lawsuits, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided [by the US Supreme Court in their 1898 decision in the case of US v.]Wong Kim Ark, we conclude the persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article 2, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” November 12, 2009
No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
The Congressional enactment of 1952 gives rise to the further question as to whether Congress has any authority whatsoever or any rational reason whatsoever to distinguish between four years' and five years' prior US residency after the age of 14 and as part of ten years' minimum residency in the United States on the part of a citizen such as Ms. Dunham. It seems as unlikely that any court today would validate such a distinction any more than it would validate a distinction based upon the mother having red hair or being right-handed or having worked on a farm or whatever.
The remarks of Mr. Bingham and of Senator Pinckney, by well-recognized and objective judicial principles of statutory interpretation are mere "legislative history" relevant and cognizable by the courts ONLY where there is some facial ambiguity in the language of the enactment itself (i.e. the 14th Amendment). Otherwise the law (the 14th Amendment in this case) says what it means and means what it says regardless of Congressional intent.
Also, there are privately employed American citizens who are effectively permanently residing in other nations who nonetheless enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. The execrable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., was born in Paris, France, to parents who were American citizens in Paris on business. The late George Romney was born in Mexico in circumstances suggesting his parents' intention to remain there in protest of Congressional requirements that Utah outlaw polygamy as a condition ofd admission as a state to the Union. Each ran unsuccessfully for President but citizenship was not seriously questioned in either case.